I-94 Overbuilding; Exhibit "A"
Unless I misread it, the eastbound sign west of Pewaukee on I-94 in Western Waukesha County said "Pewaukee next four exits."
Four.
The Village and City of Pewaukee, according to the 2000 census, together have less than 20,000 people.
How much access to the Interstate highway system is enough?
Think about the construction, maintenance, plowing, patrolling - - and yes - - eventual replacement and expansion cost in the regional freeway 'improvement' plan - - that the existing configuration entails.
Could it be that the spread-out nature of housing and businesses in that area has all but required so many interchanges?
Or did the original I-94 placement trigger the sprawl?
Hard to say, but everything in Waukesha County expansion suggests that there will be more of the same on the way, and that includes the City of Waukesha's intent to send Lake Michigan water to its south and west, the building of the Waukesha bypass, the Pabst Farms I-94 interchange to a cancelled shopping mall, etc.
It is amazing that the regional planning commission (SEWRPC) has a master land use plan in place, and all the sprawl west from both Milwaukee and the center of Waukesha's business district has been allowed to happen regardless.
And is it a coincidence that the regional planning commission's offices are in ...Pewaukee?
9 comments:
Great observation about the number of freeway exits and the population of Pewaukee...
I'd love to know the per capita operating and capital costs of those four exits.
I'm betting if you do the math and put a train or transit label on it, suburban righties would think it's way too much to spend for a "choo-choo."
Real conservatives should balk at such insane "free-way" spending.
Pewaukee lies to the north of what I can figure out are the 4 exits you most likely referring to (SS, G, Grandview, and 164).
Since Waukesha lies to the south of these same exits, and only an idiot would think that people do not use them to access Waukesha because of some ambiguous DOT signage, is not your claim James of them being for only 20k people misleading?
In addition how exactly do you think all of the people from Waukesha County to the north of Pewaukee and even to some extent southern Washington County access I-94 other than these exits?
As far as your chicken and the egg pondering about highways and suburban growth – please keep in mind that it is only Urbanists such as yourself James who considers free choice as to where one lives a bad thing and derogatorily refer to it as “sprawl”.
Not everyone wants to be told where they can and can not live by some bureaucratic governmental commission, and for now at least we still have the freedom not to.
SOM/BFTG
You mischaracterize, again. No one is telling people where they can live.
And you overstate this as a "freedom" issue. No one is challenging anyone's freedom, at all.
The term sprawl has been around for about half-a-century.
James, you're right. Sprawl has been used for 50 years as in a derogatory manner to describe those who don't agree with the urbanists that everyone on this planet should have to live stacked on top of each other within a 3 mile radius of a major population center.
James we fully realize the term sprawl has been around for over 50 years, since Urbanists such as yourself have been muttering about it for that long.
On the plus side, most Urbanists are in their 60's and 70's and will slowly fade away.
Regarding your claim that "No one is telling people where they can live"
You left off the trailing word 'yet', Urbanists don't have that power as of now but you sure would like to be it thru direct or indirect means. It is certainly what you are striving for after all.
SOM/BFTG
Anyone has a right to live in the sticks... just don't expect massive subsidies for a freeway interchange to connect each new McMansion subdivision.
Remember that conservatives are supposed to be the economically sane guys.
Sprawl don't make sense from an economic efficiency perspective.
To see what real rational choice economists think, read a book called Sprawl Costs by Burchell et al.
To Anon Jin: You probably missed the Brookings finding, with data showing a resurgence of cities at the expense of suburbs.
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/05/white-flight-from-suburbia-to-cities.html
James - you seem to get from articles only that which you want to, and have a blind eye to that which you don't.
You gleam from your linked article that your beloved cities are resurging.
A resurgence fueled supposedly with higher income younger whites migrating in from the suburbs.
You miss many salient points here. Once those whites (a diminishing demographic) start marrying and having kids - do you actually think they are all going to stay in your urban paradises or are many of them going to move back out the suburbs? Just like their parents did.
And countering the inflow is the outflow of minorities (a growing demographic) to the suburbs.
I wait with relish for the day when the race card is used against Urbanists for their anti-suburb viewpoints.
SOM/BFTG
AnonJim, you again ignore the question: why should anyone be forced to pay for all these highway ramps? You want the freedom to live out in the boonies, do it on your own dime.
Post a Comment